“Samsung accused Apple of improperly influencing expert witnesses on Monday, following the amendment of an expert report delivered to the Korean company’s legal team late Sunday night,” Jeremy Kirk reports for IDG News Service.

“The accusation came during the start of the second week of the companies’ patent trial in Australia’s Federal Court in Sydney,” Kirk reports. “The report, written by three experts, concerns three 3G-related patents owned by Samsung that the company accuses Apple of violating in the iPhone 4 and 4S models and second iPad model.”

Kirk reports, “Samsung counsel Katrina Howard said it was ‘most inappropriate’ for Apple to call a meeting with the experts and ask them to reconsider their opinions, which deal with highly technical details concerning Apple’s alleged violation of Samsung’s patents. Apple counsel Stephen Burley said there were just two changes… The change in opinion by the experts seemed unlikely to cause a major problem in the trial, however. Justice Annabelle Claire Bennett said it was not unheard of for experts to change their opinion. Samsung would have the opportunity to ask the experts why they changed their minds, she said.”

Thank You for supporting MacDailyNews!

15 Comments

I was and expert witness in a trial a dozen years ago. BOTH sides got to talk to me before the trial. My name was published to both sides months before the trial was conducted. Both sides questioned my testimony and report during the proceedings (neither side 100% liked what I said). Expert witnesses (if the report is used as evidence) are *always* grilled during the trial.

There really is *NOTHING* to see here. Stare all you want, ask questions all you want, but this is nothing unusual.

I was an expert witness at the Mapplethorpe pornography trial 20 years ago. I sided with the defense and I was surprised that the prosecution did not interview me. I had information that could have led to a guilty verdict, but I was there to answer questions and nobody asked that question. We won!

Whether or not Mapplethorpe is a ‘pornographer’ is purely a matter of opinion. A painting of a reclining nude is considered by some to be pornographic. Your opinion is yours, no-one else’s, and certainly not mine.

It isn’t illegal to ask ask experts to clarify specific opinions, and often this leads to different conclusions. samsung’s PR department (apparently attached to their legal department) are attempting to sway public opinion (because they don’t have a legal leg to stand on. If you agree to have you patents essential to a standard, then you (must) agree to FRAND licensing terms.
Apple’s patents (the ones in question) are not attached to a essential standard and so Apple is not required to license them at all.
You simply can’t rip off successful products simply because they are a better idea and, in hindsight, are the “correct” way to do it.
Samsung is simply proving more proof of how much of an underhanded and slimy of an organization they are.